CBC on Coalitions between 2008 and 2011:

Liberals, NDP, Bloc sign deal on proposed coalition

‘We must try to make this Parliament work,’ Dion says of accord

CBC News: Monday, December 1, 2008 | 10:29 PM ET

The Liberals and New Democrats signed an agreement on Monday to form an unprecedented coalition government, with a written pledge of support from the Bloc Québécois, if they are successful in ousting the minority Conservative government in a coming confidence vote.

The accord between parties led by Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe came just hours after Liberal caucus members agreed unanimously that Dion would stay on to lead the Liberal-NDP coalition, with support in the House of Commons from Bloc MPs.

More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html
——————————————————-

Harper’s coalition assertion: ‘They tried it before’

By Reality Check Team on March 29, 2011 5:49 PM

By Keith Boag,

At the core of Stephen Harper’s argument that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc will form a coalition if the Conservatives win only a minority this election is his assertion that that is what they tried to do in 2008. In his words, “they tried it before.”

There is a serious problem with that argument. It simply isn’t true. The three parties did not try to form a coalition in 2008.

More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/2011/03/harpers-coalition-assertion-they-tried-it-before.html
——————————————————–

Seems like the CBC is attempting to deconstruct history now between 2008 and 2011, and contradicting themselves too.

This is a serious contradiction by the CBC, and it should be fully investigated and exposed.

They are playing a dangerous political game and must he held to account.

There is one change in the takeover troika that’s different from 2008, it has very dark eyebrows and they really don’t match up with mildew on doggy-do mustache, topped off with a hair net the contrast is stunning, the signed document has the same status. It’s ironic also the head of the coup was appointed and crowned, not really democratic in itself but fitting for one who in real life is a Count.

Boag and the CBC are playing their partisan game as usual. They’d like to have us think the 2008 coalition wasn’t for real. It was, it is. Let them try it again and we’ll have people taking to the streets to fight for this democracy. Coalitions made up of losing parties that don’t include any MP’s from the winning party is not democratic, it’s called a hostile takeover, a coup and that’s a dangerous threat to this democracy.

Coalition (Conspiracy?) is alive and well

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/03/30/17806461.html

‘nuf said

Coalition (Conspiracy?) is alive and well

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/03/30/17806461.html

‘nuf said

Coalition (Conspiracy?) is alive and well

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/03/30/17806461.html

‘nuf said

Yep, there it is for all to see. How do you spell d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n?

Seems like the CBC is attempting to deconstruct history now between 2008 and 2011, and contradicting themselves too.

Absolute BS.

The CPC and their fanbase all try to wallpaper this over, but the coalition threat of late 2008 was in DIRECT response to a Harper government that had temporarily lost its marbles, with a fiscal update that was full of partisan and pointless attacks to the other parties, while ignoring a raging economic crisis that was the top priority.

(not bothering to link – if you’re actually on this planet you know the truth of this)

The coalition threat worked – Harper later backed down from the self-serving actions and was forced to work with the other parties to address the economic issues.

To suggest that forming a coalition is top of mind with the current opposition parties is pure CPC fantasy. I’m really surprised that they consider it their best argument.

Seems like the CBC is attempting to deconstruct history now between 2008 and 2011, and contradicting themselves too.

Absolute BS.

The CPC and their fanbase all try to wallpaper this over, but the coalition threat of late 2008 was in DIRECT response to a Harper government that had temporarily lost its marbles, with a fiscal update that was full of partisan and pointless attacks to the other parties, while ignoring a raging economic crisis that was the top priority.

(not bothering to link – if you’re actually on this planet you know the truth of this)

The coalition threat worked – Harper later backed down from the self-serving actions and was forced to work with the other parties to address the economic issues.

To suggest that forming a coalition is top of mind with the current opposition parties is pure CPC fantasy. I’m really surprised that they consider it their best argument.

Are you suggesting the 2008 Coalition Accord was merely a bluff attempt to stop the Harper gov’t from eliminating their per vote subsidy? If you are, they went to extraordinary lengths to stop Harper … when a simple letter asking the GG to consider all her “options” was only needed.

BTW … I twice tried posting my above posting on a CBC forum on the subject of “coalitions” … and both times it was refused by the CBC “moderator” … go figure …!!!!

The CBC News Network is now openly supporting the Liberals, ignoring the NDP and attacking Harper and Conservatives. Perhaps they fear for their continued existence and are pulling out all the stops to survive the inevitable political price they would bear under a majority Conservative gov’t.

Are you suggesting the 2008 Coalition Accord was merely a bluff attempt to stop the Harper gov’t from eliminating their per vote subsidy? If you are, they went to extraordinary lengths to stop Harper … when a simple letter asking the GG to consider all her “options” was only needed.

The 2008 coalition threat was no bluff; if Harper hadn’t reconsidered, there would either have been an coalition government, or another election. And there was more at stake than the voter subsidy.

Harper and the CPC continue to bs and obfuscate their way through their accountability deficit. Can’t blame the CBC for calling them on it.

So you believe the CBC should pro-actively engage in political activity, even though it is a state-funded broadcaster?

Then you should accept that the CBC should pay the political price if Canadians elect a Harper majority gov’t …. and that means proportionately slashing their taxpayer subsidy.

If Harper wins a majority gov’t with say 45% of the vote and the Opposition gets 55% of the vote … then the CBC $1.2 Billion annual subsidy should be reduced by 45% to $660 Million … agreed?

So you believe the CBC should pro-actively engage in political activity, even though it is a state-funded broadcaster?

I never thought that a news organization telling the truth was “pro-actively engag[ing] in political activity”.

Then again I never felt that a national, publicly-funded independent broadcaster was supposed to be a propaganda arm of the government, either.

Even though I do not always agree, or watch every single thing they air, I’m proud that the CBC is a world-respected broadcaster, equal in the world to the BBC or Deutsche Welle, and that their journalistic and documentary output is well-regarded for its thoroughness and depth. Or would you rather watch Fox, and find out who’s back in rehab?